Friday, October 05, 2012

Registration is a diamond's best friend

An old-school priority case!This one might go nicely in a casebook update.Plaintiff Diamonds Direct has used its mark
in North Carolina since 1996.In January
2012, BFJ, d/b/a Capri Jewelers, registered “Diamonds Direct” with the Virginia
State Corporation Commission after it learned that Diamonds Direct intended to
open a store in Capri's home market, Richmond, Virginia. It did so to protect its position in the
Richmond market because of its prior use of similar marks.The parties brought cross claims for an
injunction.Capri won.

Diamonds Direct started in Charlotte, and expanded to
Raleigh and Birmingham, Alabama in 2008.By 2011, it was considering expansion to a new market, and ultimately
decided to open in Richmond.(There’s
another company using “Diamonds Direct” in Raleigh, in business since 1993, and
another in St. Petersburg, Florida, since 1984.However, the parties agreed that Diamonds Direct had a common-law mark
in North Carolina.)Diamonds Direct
applied for federal registration in 2001, but abandoned the effort.It’s filed state applications in North
Carolina, Alabama, and Texas, though the Texas one was rejected, in part
because Diamonds Direct has not yet begun to sell products in Texas.

Starting in 1999, Diamond Direct’s customer database showed
a number of customers with Virginia addresses.About 700 of DD’s 69,000 customers have given a Virginia address.There was no evidence about specific
purchases in or from Virginia, or evidence of Virginia consumer association.

DD has had its mark used in nationally/Virginia-circulated
magazines.Most of the relevant ads were
prepared by jewelry manufacturers who supply their lines of jewelry to Diamonds
Direct and, in some cases, to Capri—they were “tag” advertisements that direct readers
to jewelry stores that carry its line. This costs DD a “meager” portion of its
multi-million-dollar ad budget.In the
tag ads, DD, was always associated with the Charlotte, Raleigh, and Birmingham
markets. The tag ads didn’t describe the Diamonds Direct model for acquiring
diamonds directly from suppliers in Israel, at the core of its local
advertising efforts. The evidence didn’t show what if any sales to Virginia
residents resulted from tag ads.Several
of those ads directed Virginia consumers to Capri and other retailers
throughout Virginia. There was only one a direct, non-tag ad in the record
prominently promoting DD, and it specifically identified DD locations in
Birmingham, Charlotte, and Raleigh—not Virginia.

Meanwhile, back in Richmond, Capri had been selling jewelry
since 1983.Over the past ten years, it
advertised variations of “direct” such as “Buy Direct, Save Direct,” “Annual
Direct Diamond Sale,” and “Virginia's Largest Direct Diamond Event.” When Capri
learned that DD was going to open a store in Richmond, Capri filed to register “Diamonds
Direct” in Virginia.Its claimed date of
first use was Jan. 14, 2012.Capri
immediately began to use “Diamonds Direct” in ads throughout the Richmond area,
resulting in at least one instance of confusion with a DD customer.

The court found that Capri was likely to show that it was the
owner in Virginia, and thus entitled to a preliminary injunction.The court first found that “Diamonds Direct”
was at least suggestive—which seems quite wrong to me, and an example of how
unargued issues (since neither party had much incentive to argue
descriptiveness and indeed didn’t present evidence directly bearing on
secondary meaning) are likely to go awry.The court said, “Here, a consumer must imagine whether ‘Diamonds Direct’
refers to jewelry shipped directly to the purchaser, obtained directly from
overseas suppliers, or obtained directly from the designer,” meaning that
consumers had to think creatively to figure out how the words were
associated.Sigh.

Virginia registration creates a rebuttable presumption of
ownership in Virginia, which may be rebutted by showing common law prior use
rights.This requires actual use.United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co., 248
U.S. 90 (1918).At common law, the scope
of rights is limited to the locality of use and to the area of probable
expansion, though the common law is not entirely in play because, the court
ruled, Capri had state statutory rights and thus the United Drug rules for when a remote secondary user might beat out a
local user with priority don’t fully apply.Advertising alone is insufficient to establish use; they must penetrate
the consumer market and be shown to have an effect.

DD couldn’t defeat the presumption of ownership resulting
from the state registration.And it
couldn’t show that its ads and few Virginia customers were enough to show use
of its mark.“Above all, there is simply
no evidence that Diamonds Direct has sold any product in Virginia that bears
its mark.”Also, the ads weren’t shown
to have any effect in Virginia.Given
the way the tag ads were configured, “even if a Virginia resident read the fine
print, he would not perceive Diamonds Direct as a source of jewelry in his
market…. Because most of the advertisements direct Virginians to Virginia-based
retailers, indicating only that Diamonds Direct is in North Carolina and
Alabama, it cannot be said that Diamonds Direct was ‘deliberately’ targeting
the Virginia market with these ads.”

DD also argued that Richmond was within its natural zone of
expansion.This requires consideration
of (1) previous business activity; (2) previous expansion or lack thereof; (3)
dominance of contiguous areas; (4) presently-planned expansion; and (5)
possible market penetration by means of products brought from other areas.Looking at these factors, DD didn’t make its
case.Among other things, its closest
established market was in Raleigh, not a region contiguous with Richmond even
though the states share a border.

The court went on to find that confusion was likely, and
that an injunction was justified.The
equities favored Capri: DD suggested that Capri’s registration was made in bad
faith to exclude DD, but Capri had been using variations on the “direct diamond”
theme for at least 10 years.Capri
worried about likely confusion when it discovered DD’s plans, and made a “tactical,
legal business decision to register the mark with the Virginia State
Corporation Commission to protect its long established market share. Given its
existing advertising scheme and the fact that Diamonds Direct had not yet
established a presence in Richmond, registration of the mark could hardly
constitute bad faith.”An injunction
would merely protect the status quo.

Creative Commons/disclaimer

Text on this blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. Pictures and works quoted may be subject to other parties' copyrights.
I speak for myself. On this blog, I do not and cannot speak for Georgetown Law, the Organization for Transformative Works and/or AO3.